Instigator
Points: 14

Standard of living and quality of life are different things

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
billbatard
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Required rating
10
Contender
Points: 6
Description
Standard of living deals with the amount of money one has, quality of life is how well you can live and enjoy what you have, it can be a lot less but if you do more with it, money doesn't really matter
Round 1
Published:
Resolved a nation can have a significantly lower standard of living and yet have a significantly higher quality of life, you can live better with less stuff, proof can be seen when comparing Canada to the USA , Americans are wealthier than Canada by some margin, but Canadians live longer are better educated  and safer..https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings
Published:
Thank you for respoonding


Let's define standard of living and quality of life. You seem to think that standard of living is all about wealth. According to Wikipedia (sorry, the only reliable source I could find) the standard of living is

level of wealth, comfort, material goods, and necessities available to a certain socioeconomic class in a certain geographic area, usually a country

Quality of life is defined by Britannica as:

, the degree to which an individual is healthy, comfortable, and able to participate in or enjoy life events. The term quality of life is inherently ambiguous, as it can refer both to the experience an individual has of his or her own life and to the living conditions in which individuals find themselves. Hence, quality of life is highly subjective


You can obviously see that comfort is the factor in both, therefore they are similar in some ways. You said they were entirely different. 



Also they both have the letter I.
Round 2
Published:
In those definitions you see clearly and i am talking to the voters here standard of living deals with what you have, and quality of life is about how much you enjoy what you have, and benefit from it, you can have a lower standard of living and a much higher qualty of life  
#1 in Quality of Life Rankings
No Change in Rank from 2018


READ MORE 
Canada takes up about two-fifths of the North American continent, making it the second-largest country in the world after Russia. The country is sparsely populated, with most of its 35.5 million residents living within 125 miles of the U.S. border. Canada’s expansive wilderness to the north plays a large role in Canadian identity, as does the country’s reputation of welcoming immigrants.
GDP
$1.7 trillion
POPULATION
36.7 million
GDP PER CAPITA, PPP
$48,390


#17 in Quality of Life Rankings
No Change in Rank from 2018


READ MORE 
The United States of America is a North American nation that is the world’s most dominant economic and military power. Likewise, its cultural imprint spans the world, led in large part by its popular culture expressed in music, movies and television. In 2016 the country elected Donald Trump president. Trump's rhetoric and stances on issues including immigration and foreign trade have raised questions around the world, including from the country’s closest allies, about the nation’s future course on the global stage.
GDP
$19.4 trillion
POPULATION
325.7 million

Published:
I don't think you understand. You said that standard of living and quality of life were different things. You made it clear that it was completely different. Due to your lack of definitions, I added them.  By looking at definition you can see that there is in fact one commonality which is comfort. COMFORT is a variable in both things. 

I know that you can have a bad quality of life but a good standard of living, but the problem is, we are not arguing about that, WE ARE DEBATING ABOUT IF THEY'RE DIFFERENT OR NOT. This is an easy win for me.




You never made it clear in any of the debate rules that I couldn't compare letters either, you can clearly see that they both have the letter "I".



Voters, yes I am trolling a little, but trolling within the rules. billbatard never made specific rules guiding how I can see them as similar. 
Round 3
Published:
the fact that your standard of living can be much lower and at the same time your quality of life higher? proves i am right, and i have posted proof of that by comparing standard of living and quality of life comparisons for the usa and Canada
Published:
Is it not a fact that they have the same letter and THAT THEY HAVE THE SAME COMFORT FACTOR in their definitions. It's quite rude that you're ignoring me. Yes, there is differences, but there are also similarities. 



Voters:

Arguments:
Pro failed to refute any of the arguments at hand, only using his arguments, to effectively do nothing.

Sources: Both of us have sufficient sources

Conduct: Good conduct, I guess.

Grammar: Pro had pretty bad grammar.
Round 4
Published:
All i have to do is provide and example of one nation that has a lower standard of living and yet a higher quality of life, and i did that...goes back to listening to depeche mode
Published:
I stated that they are not completely similar. ALL I HAVE TO DO is provide a similarity. 


also S&G
Round 5
Published:
no you dont you have to prove they are exactly the same and you cant  i win
Published:
If I have to prove they're exactly the same, then you have to prove they are not exactly the same. You didn't make anything clear in your rules, besides your arguments. Thank you for the debate, I get conduct, tie everything else.
Added:
https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_green_what_the_social_progress_index_can_reveal_about_your_country
Instigator
#6
Added:
--> @billbatard
I agree with you. A lot of rich people are absolutely miserable. But i believe there misery comes from ungodliness.some people People are restless not happy 99 percent of the time. They mistake it for depression. Why are they unhappy they have everything. They are unhappy because they have stomped over a ton of people to get that wealth or they are a mean person. And because doing bad things effect us biologically because gods morale system is in place.Doing bad things and being wicked makes you feel restless and depressed and not happy.While Doing good makes you feel good . Ever hear about how great it feels to give. Someone donates stuff to a homeless person and they feel really happy afterwards. That is because gods morale system effects us biologically. God makes those who do good feel good. Doing bad makes you depressed and restless. Because Gods morale system effects us biologically.
in john 4 Jesus meets a Samorian woman who had lusted after thing her whole life. She had 5 husbands. The Passion would only last a couple minutes. It was never enough She was restless it did not last. Jesus said to her if you drink from me you will never thirst again. What he is saying if you believe in him you will be at peace you won't be thirsty. But If you keep doing what your doing you will be restless and depressed you will be thirsty
john 4
13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again,
but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”
16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
17 “I have no husband,” she replied. Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband.
18 The fact is, you have had five husbands,
https://www.biblestudytools.com/john/4.html
#5
Added:
--> @Christen
well can we do it with me ?
Instigator
#4
Added:
--> @dustryder, @billbatard
I just had a discussion on this very topic with dustryder on the forum not too long ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1272/post_links/107592
#3
Added:
--> @billbatard
isn't this truism?
#2
Added:
--> @billbatard
lol
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Both Con and Pro identify as male in their profile.
Con's only use of a source was one he didn't even link to, just mentioned the company/publisher as Britannica and the actual quoted stuff all either contradicted his case, or was irrelevant to the debate. On the other hand, Pro used sources to back up what he was saying and each use supported his case that standard of living and quality of life were different things. Con's maximal use of source was solely in showing that both had comfort involved but that was not at all how to win the debate and the very quotes showed differences in and of themselves between the two.
Both sides were extremely lazy, thus conduct is tied. Con tried to lazily make Pro lose due to Pro not having shown them to be entirely different, with zero similarities, and Pro tried to do the 'exact same' to Con by saying that Con had failed to show how they were completely the same, with zero differences.
Con couldn't have won this debate even if he tried but if he had tried to perhaps define this as an 'on balance' debate, he had to surely show far more than just one factor (comfort) as the unifying trait/s to conclude that SL and QL are the same. Pro wins by presenting the case that Canada, for instance, has a higher avergae quality of life for its citizens than the US despite the US having greater standard of living (on paper) for its citizens.
To combat this, Con almost concedes the entire debate by stating the following:
"I know that you can have a bad quality of life but a good standard of living, but the problem is, we are not arguing about that, WE ARE DEBATING ABOUT IF THEY'RE DIFFERENT OR NOT. "
The entire lowercase part of the quote contradicts the uppercase part of the quote, in terms of Con's side of things. You wouldn't be able to have a bad QL with good SL if they weren't different.
Pro point this out in the next Round, making it the rebuttal that single-handedly won the debate even without Pro having made a single argument before or afterwards (not that they didn't play into my vote, as I explained).
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
To improve formatting (thus win a lot more debates): https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
So I'm pretty sure con was just trolling this. Conceding the resolution ("I know that you can have a bad quality of life but a good standard of living"), but insisting he won the debate in a weird type of lawyering Kritik.
It's clear they are related things, but pro succeeded in showing the measurements differ (USA has a higher GDP per capita, but ranks much lower in quality of life). A con case could have been made focusing on inequality in wealth distribution accounting for that (pun intended), but such was not done (instead he argued both terms contain some of the same letters).
At the end of the day, the evidence offered makes them seem correlated but different.